alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### American Shipping Co. *v.*United States

No. 7399.

Invoice dated London, England, August 24, 1941.

Certified September 2, 1941.

Entered at New York, N. Y., October 18, 1941.

Entry No. 720251.

(Decided October 7, 1947)

*Strauss & Hedges (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cole, Judge

(Abstract): This appeal for reappraisement of various items of -merchandise concerns the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of -the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” 'The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administra-tive Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

Undisputed facts established that the proper basis for appraisement of the .instant merchandise is export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), and that such statutory values for the articles in question tare the appraised values, less additions made on entry because of advances in ¡similar cases.
No. 50240.

#### Protests 19992-K, etc., of General Glove Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Olives, P. J.

It was stipulated that the gloves in question are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *Aris Gloves, Inc.*(31 C. C. P. A. 169, C. A. D. 268), which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith certain items of the merchandise were held dutiable at $5 per dozen pairs, plus $1 per dozen pairs, under paragraph 1532 (a), as modified by the Czechoslovakian Trade Agreement (T. D. 49458), and other items were held dutiable at $5.50 per dozen pairs under the same paragraph.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>        5

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Aug-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          Sep-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            Nov-30-1999
<CASH>                                          398
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     0
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                398
<PP&E>                                      509,888
<DEPRECIATION>                              493,757
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               28,373
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     7,399,575
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                 38,258,096
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                        0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 28,373
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  0
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              (721,969)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            182,044
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          532,060
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   0
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               3,520
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                               (721,969)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7269

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BRYAN CHRISTOPHER SAMUEL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00351-TSE-1; 1:17-cv-01432-

TSE)

Submitted: February 20, 2020 Decided: February 24, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bryan Christopher Samuel, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bryan Christopher Samuel appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (2018) motion and denying it on that basis.*

 Our review of the record confirms that 

the district court properly construed Samuel’s Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2255

motion over which it lacked jurisdiction because he failed to obtain prefiling authorization 

from this court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h) (2018); McRae, 793 F.3d at 397-

400. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 

Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th 

Cir. 2003), we construe Samuel’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to 

file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Samuel’s claims 

do not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). We therefore deny 

authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 * A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s 

jurisdictional categorization of a Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized, successive § 2255 

motion. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).
(logo) Grant Thornton

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

** **

|  

 

 

  | **Audit • Tax  •Advisory**

**Grant Thornton LLP**

1201 Walnut St, Suite 2200

Kansas City, Missouri 64106

T 816.412.2400

F 816.412.2404 |
|--------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Board of Directors 

Situs Holdings, LLC

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying CertificationRegarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria (“Management’sAssertion”), that Situs Holdings, LLC (the “Company”)complied with servicing criteria set forth in Items 1117, 1119, 1122(d)(3)(i)and 1122(d)(4)(vii) of the U.S.  Securities and ExchangeCommission’s Regulation AB for the Operating or Trust Advisor ServicesPlatform (the “Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016.The platform consists of asset-backed transactions and securities defined bymanagement in Appendix B of Management’s report. Management isresponsible for the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’sassertion about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria for the Platform based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting OversightBoard (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis,evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria for the Platform and performing such other procedures as we considerednecessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selectedasset-backed transactions and securities constituting the Platform andevaluating whether the Company performed servicing activities related to thosetransactions and securities in compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria for the period covered by this report. Accordingly, our testing maynot have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transactionor security constituting the Platform. Further, our examination was notdesigned to detect material noncompliance that may have occurred prior to theperiod covered by this report and that may have affected the Company’sservicing activities during the period covered by this report. We believe thatour examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examinationdoes not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance withthe applicable servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that Situs Holdings, LLC complied with theaforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year endedDecember 31, 2016, for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

 

Kansas City, Missouri 

February 28, 2017
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALFRED SPINNEY KELIIHULUHULU,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

and

LORNA PIKAKE SPINNEY,

Intervenor

- Plaintiff,

v.

NORMAN A. KEANAAINA; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 19

- 17342

D.C. No. 1:19

- cv

- 00417

- LEK

- WRP

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 20, 2021 * *

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Alfred Spinney Keliihuluhulu appeals pro se from the district court’s

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 26 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 17342

judgment dismissing for failure to comply with a court order his action challenging

t he use and sale of a property easement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply

with a court order. Pagtalunan v. Galaza , 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We

affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Keliihuluhulu’s

action after Keliihuluhulu failed to comply with the district court’s order, despite

being warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. See id . at 642

- 43

(discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss for failure to

comply with a court order and noting that dismissal should not be disturbed absent

“a definite and firm conviction” that the district court “committed a clear error of

judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.
(Reap. Dec. 8926)

Entry No. 770, etc.

#### F. W. Woolworth Company et al. *v.*United States

(Decided July 23, 1957)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED BY and between the attorneys for the parties hereto, that the market value or the price of the merchandise on the invoices covered by the appeals for reappraisement, enumerated on Schedule A hereto attached and made a part hereof, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Germany, in the *586usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States was in each ease the appraised value less the amount added under duress, packing included, and that there was no higher foreign value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these appeals be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value in each case was the appraised value, less the amount added under duress, packing included.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 13.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Marc Voigt, Chief Financial Officer of Prima BioMed Ltd, (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



|1. | The Companys Annual Report on Form 20-F for the period ended June 30, 2013, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 13.2 (the Annual Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: October 30, 2013



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Marc Voigt         
|Marc Voigt             
|Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Form 20-F to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Prima BioMed Ltd under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 20-F),
irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 267 

To authorize testimony, document production, and legal representation in 

State of New Hampshire v. Anne Miller, Mary Lee Sargent, Jessica 

Ellis, Lynn Chong, Donald Booth, Eileen Reardon. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 5, 2005 

Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. REID) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize testimony, document production, and legal representation in State of New Hampshire v. Anne Miller, 

Mary Lee Sargent, Jessica Ellis, Lynn Chong, Donald 

Booth, Eileen Reardon. 

Whereas, in the cases of State of New Hampshire v. Anne 

Miller, Mary Lee Sargent, Jessica Ellis, Lynn Chong, 

Donald Booth, Eileen Reardon, pending in Concord District Court, New Hampshire, testimony and documents 

have been requested from Carol Carpenter, an employee 

in the office of Senator Judd Gregg; 

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the 

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. 288b(a) and 

288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent an employee of the Senate with respect to any sub-
2 

SRES 267 ATS

poena, order, or request for testimony relating to their 

official responsibilities; 

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States 

and rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, be 

taken from such control or possession but by permission 

of the Senate; and 

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or 

in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will 

promote the ends of justice consistent with the privileges 

of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That Carol Carpenter and other employees 

2 of Senator Gregg’s office from whom testimony or the pro3 duction of documents may be required are authorized to 

4 testify and produce documents in the cases of State of 

5 New Hampshire v. Anne Miller, Mary Lee Sargent, Jes6 sica Ellis, Lynn Chong, Donald Booth, Eileen Reardon, 

7 except concerning matters for which a privilege should be 

8 asserted. 

9 SEC. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to 

10 represent Carol Carpenter and other employees of Senator 

11 Gregg’s office in connection with the testimony and docu12 ment production authorized in section one of this resolu13 tion. 

Æ
```

[104th Congress Public Law 253]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ253.104]

[[Page 110 STAT. 3167]]

Public Law 104-253
104th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To increase the amount authorized to be appropriated to the Department 
 of the Interior for the Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge, and for 
         other purposes. <<NOTE: Oct. 9, 1996 -  [H.R. 2660]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AMOUNT AUTHORIZED TO BE APPROPRIATED TO THE 
            DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FOR THE TENSAS RIVER NATIONAL 
            WILDLIFE REFUGE.

    Section 5(1) of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish the 
Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge'', approved June 28, 1980 (Public 
Law 96-285, 94 Stat. 597), <<NOTE: 16 USC 668dd note.>>  as amended by 
section 2 of Public Law 99-191 (99 Stat. 1327), is amended to read as 
follows:
            ``(1) beginning October 1, 1995, not to exceed $20,000,000 
        to the Department of the Interior; and''.

SEC. 2. BAYOU SAUVAGE URBAN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE.

    (a) Refuge Expansion.--Section 502(b)(1) of the Emergency Wetlands 
Resources Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-645; <<NOTE: 16 USC 668dd note.>>  
100 Stat. 3590), is amended by inserting after the first sentence the 
following: ``In addition, the Secretary may acquire, within such period 
as may be necessary, an area of approximately 4,228 acres, consisting of 
approximately 3,928 acres located north of Interstate 10 between Little 
Woods and Pointe-aux-Herbes and approximately 300 acres south of 
Interstate 10 between the Maxent Canal and Michoud Boulevard that 
contains the Big Oak Island archaeological site, as depicted on the map 
entitled ``Bayou Sauvage Urban National Wildlife Refuge Expansion'', 
dated August, 1996, on file with the United States Fish and Wildlife 
Service.''.

    Approved October 9, 1996.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2660:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 104-526 (Comm. on Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 142 (1996):
            Apr. 23, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 24, considered and passed Senate, amended.
            Sept. 26, House concurred in Senate amendments.

                                  <all>
```
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. Robert W. Kneisley

Associate General Counsel

1901 L Street, NW

- Suite 640

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 263

- 6284

(202) 263

- 6291

- Fax bob.kneisley@wnco.com

January 20, 2012

Via email and regulations.gov

Esta Rosenberg

Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Application of AirTran Airways for Exemption Authority ( AUS

- CUN

and DEN

- CUN) ; Docket DOT

- OST

- 201 2

- 0 007

Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

This letter is to confirm that AirTran Airways (“AirTran”) has polled all carriers on

the service list attached to the above

- referenced Application

, and all carriers responded

that they have no objections. A ccordingly

, AirTran requests that the exemption authority

specified in the A pplication be granted as soon as possible

.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________ Robert W. Kneisley

cc: Susan Kurland, DOT

Paul Gretch, DOT

Brian Hedberg, DOT

Brett Kruger, DOT

John Allen, FAA

Kris Urs, DOS
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL AND EXECUTIVE FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT

TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002.



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Superior Growth Corporation, (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Rozelle, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: October 4, 2011



/s/ Joseph Rozelle

Joseph Rozelle

President

(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Report for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.